Transfer pricing requires evidence for AMP transactions, functionally reliable comparables, and appropriate aggregation or Berry Ratio benchmarking me...
Revisionary jurisdiction cannot reopen share capital assessments where adequate inquiry supports a permissible view and no independent error is establ...
Reassessment jurisdiction fails where unverified portal information is aggregated without examining the taxpayer's explanation or relevance of entries...
Statutory sanction for delayed reassessment requires approval from the prescribed authority; approval by an inferior authority invalidates jurisdictio...
Transfer pricing margin adjustments require matching treatment of non-operating income and related costs, with comparability issues reconsidered on ev...
Preliminary-expense amortisation and MAT exempt-income adjustments prevailed, while trademark costs and managerial remuneration require fresh verifica...
Export valuation requires contemporaneous evidence; unrelated invoices cannot prove overvaluation, and dual penalties on firm and partner are impermis...
The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer based on an audit objection were invalid. The Court observed that the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction by relying on the audit objection, which was contrary to the facts and evidence on record, especially when the department had previously accepted and granted depreciation on the goodwill claimed by the assessee for earlier years. The Court emphasized that even though an audit objection can be considered as "information" for reopening an assessment u/s 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot merely reiterate the audit objection while ignoring the facts of the case and the assessee's reply filed u/s 148A(b).
The High Court held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer based on an audit objection were invalid. The Court observed that the Assessing Officer could not have assumed jurisdiction by relying on the audit objection, which was contrary to the facts and evidence on record, especially when the department had previously accepted and granted depreciation on the goodwill claimed by the assessee for earlier years. The Court emphasized that even though an audit objection can be considered as "information" for reopening an assessment u/s 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer cannot merely reiterate the audit objection while ignoring the facts of the case and the assessee's reply filed u/s 148A(b).
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
